Wrong... it's the FITTEST that survives...correct quote is survival of the FITTEST...not the "strongest". You ve confused mottos written on bodybuilding t shirts with darwin 's original quote it seems.

BTW, most recent studies found out that men are evolving to be more attractive because mating with more partners increases the chance of reproductive success for a man".

I think it's time to burst your bubble.

1. Charles Darwin never said or wrote that. It is a quote that was misattributed..........http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/one-thing-darwin-didnt-say2. ev·o·lu·tion /ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/NounThe process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

e·volve /iˈvälv/VerbDevelop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.(with reference to an organism or biological feature) Develop over successive generations, esp. as a result of natural selection.

We are not evolving into anything. See definitions of evolution and evolve. No one has EVER seen anything EVOLVE from anything else. No fossils, no living being, nothing. Because of all the race mixing, we are seeing many more VARIATIONS.

3. Although misquoted, yes, that quote sums up what Darwin believed. Truth is those who are able to adapt to their environments the best, survives. This includes, intellect, strength, adaptability, survival and reproductivity.

Please no more misquoting Darwin, my little internet psychologist "Christian" buddy. Remember evolution is a THEORY. (A very bad one with lots of holes).

Yeah, only lifeforms able to adapt whatever the way they adapt, survive, while those who cant adapt fast enough disapear.

And?

What kind of moron are you exactly, you just proved..nothing. Congrats, now go get a job instead of looking for white whores to pose with for internet tough guy picture contests.

The point of the thread cause you clearly didn't get it or want to get it is that Darwin didn't say or write the shit you use as a mantra. In addition, there's no EVOLUTION. It's a theory with no proof. Get it now spanky?

The point of the thread cause you clearly didn't get it or want to get it is that Darwin didn't say or write the shit you use as a mantra. In addition, there's no EVOLUTION. It's a theory with no proof. Get it now spanky?

I said the exact same thing saying it's not the strongest, or smartest that survives, but the FITTEST, IE the lifeform that has a balanced mix of smarts and strenght. If you re strong but dumb you disapear facing smarter life forms, if you re smart but weak, you disapear facing stronger life forms. Hence symbiotic relationships as known as "cooperation" between some lifeforms to maintain or increase each other odds of survival.

Just to think you ve been preparing this nonsensical uterly vain thread just for me since the last time I posted ....wow. Get a life.

I said the exact same thing saying it's not the strongest, or smartest that survives, but the FITTEST, IE the lifeform that has a balanced mix of smarts and strenght. If you re strong but dumb you disapear facing smarter life forms, if you re smart but weak, you disapear facing stronger life forms. Hence symbiotic relationships as known as "cooperation" between some lifeforms to maintain or increase each other odds of survival.

Just to think you ve been preparing this nonsensical uterly vain thread just for me since the last time I posted ....wow. Get a life.

Let me dumb it down for you. You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from. Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking. That is incorrect. Evolving isn't the correct word or idea. It's more VARIATION.

'Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'

Even the Greys know that

That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection (especially since there's no proof of evolution.) That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?

That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection. That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?

I do not travel the path of intellectual supremacy - I'm of average intellect at most but I can connect and extrapolate.Is there any species* out there that just "evolutes" away without being forced to survive and compete?

That's not what evolution means in it's true definition. Natural selection is natural selection and evolution is evolution. Biological evolution is something totally different from natural selection (especially since there's no proof of evolution.) That what you posted is some prick trying to be sly by trying to blend the two. Only a numb skull would fall for it. You're not a numb skull are you bruce?

Evolution is the process of change that occurs as a result of or initiated by natural selection.

Evolution is the process of change that occurs as a result of or initiated by natural selection.

Perhaps that's your definition, but it's not the standard definition.

If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney. Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.

If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney. Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.

First, you've got to understand that evolution takes a very long time, making it difficult to observe, particularly drastic changes in species. It took single celled organisms billions of years to evolve into humans and others species. Transitional fossil exist in abundance that clearly demonstrate evolution of species. Scientist have found not one but a dozen of the so-called missing links.

Scientist have observed evolution in nature. The finches on Galapagos and the peppered moths in England are two great examples The evolution of those species occurred within a normal humans life time which makes it easier to study.

Let me dumb it down for you. You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from. Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking. That is incorrect. Evolving isn't the correct word or idea. It's more VARIATION.

If your definition is true, what does that say about the idea of an amoeba "evolving" a human (eventually). Where does that all fit in? IT DOESN'T. It's fucking baloney. Keep in mind, no proof of anything "evolving" into anything. Not one piece of evidence, yet, modern biology is based on this. Hahahhahahahahha. What a crock of shit.

So don't I. As I understood it evolution in a species is tied to external factors which alter survival.I guess you're more about criticizing the spore to ape train.

I see what you're saying now. We're talking about the same thing but different parts of it. Yes, in theory, it is external factors that drive this. I'm critizing the whole idea because 1. It's a theory that is passed and used as fact 2. There's not one shred of proof of anything "evolving" into anything. 3. Carbon 14 dating is so fucking faulty it's a joke.

You'd think that a topic like this especially arguing from my side of it, I'd have tons of getbiggers trying to destroy me, but proof speaks for itself and evolution has no proof. Nuff' said. So anyone that laughs or pokes fun at ones religion might want to take another look because evolution is a religion.